The exit strategy DC ignored! Don't go in the first place!

Last night's Commons vote in favour of bombing Daesh in Syria was, unsurprisingly, passed with our Dave claiming a clear mandate by the margin of the victory gained.  Reports this morning state that within an hour of the result, RAF Tornados were were let loose on oil installations in Daesh held territory in eastern Syria, with Defence Secretary Michael Fallon confirming that they flew from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.

So Britain's in!  In truth, from the moment the first bomb was set off outside the Stade de France there was never any other way that Cameron would have had it.  Standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies!  That's the British way lads!  Hurrah!

And yes, whilst it may well be the British way, the seeming lack of a clear and coherent allied strategy and, what's more, no exit strategy to boot, one can't help thinking that dear old JC might have hit the nail on the proverbial head when he suggested Davey-boy was 'rushing headlong into a War' without any plan as to what comes afterwards.

The arguments 'for' are well trodden and, I would guess, that even though they are largely understood and appreciated by the public at large, I would strongly suggest that the majority do NOT want this 'mission' (for want of a worse word) undertaken in their name.  For myself, I'm flabbergasted that more isn't being done to pull the financial teeth of Daesh, and if it is being done, then why aren't we being told about it?  Surely naming and shaming the countries, corporations, banks and individuals who are profiting out of doing business with Daesh would be a tremendous coup.

Yesterday we had Russia accusing Turkey of buying this tainted oil, an accusation strongly denied by Turkish President Erdogan.  Once again, surely we should be told the truth.  I've no doubt that the Security Services of many nations know exactly who these racketeers are; so let's bring it into the open, why not?

Well, I'd hazard a guess as to why not, and that would be that for many, be they any of the above who benefit, it could prove to be an embarrassment for one or more of the allies.  That's the problem with War.  Whilst those on the ground suffer, die and starve, someone else sits somewhere else counting their ill-gotten gains, gilded in an amoral cage made of financial favours, political deceit and out-right greed.  That anyone should profit out of War is bad enough, but to propagate it in order to profit is a sin of the highest order.

The BBC yesterday said that they understood smuggled Daesh oil may well be being sold and marketed within Turkey, as well as further afield.  Such knowledge is invaluable, but is it the truth?  For a NATO ally and a nation that wishes to join the EEC this should be bad news.  If Turkey is complicit in this trade then there should be consequences.  If not, but it is going within their borders then some serious questions need to be asked and answered of the Turkish security forces.  If the BBC can uncover this, then quite frankly, where the  f*&k were you guys?  

Dave also tells us that there are 70,000 moderate Syrians willing to do the donkey work once our bombs have tenderised the enemy sufficiently.  But he doesn't seem to be able to explain where or who these moderates are.  From recent past experience, surely arming, training and supplying other faceless, nameless groups, who may well be jihadists themselves of one colour or another, is a lesson in futility.  When it's all done and dusted can we just ask for our guns back?  Pretty please?

So imagine Daesh are gone now, but were left with vast reaches of the Middle East with no infrastructure, no viable cities, no nothing apart from groups of wildly, victorious 'rebels,' armed to the teeth, bearing their own grudges against who? the West, other Muslims, Jews, anyone who tries to tell them how to live their lives?   Just take your pick!

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

If you haven't seen Charlie Wilson's War, then this next reference might pass you by, because as the Cabinet pat each other on their backs for the all good work they've done and continue to do, I'm sitting here thinking, 'we'll see!'

I can see the West turning their backs once again.  Sure, the refineries need re-building, so we'll send the boys in, get them up and running again making sure, mais bien sur, that the vast majority of the oil flows back into the coffers of the hailed liberators, the profits lining the pockets of the legitimate enterprises that 'are struggling to get this country back on it's feet,' whilst at the same time investing the morally won profits in a nice little mansion in the Hamptons, 'you know, a little bit of security for my Grand kids!'

But what about the kids left homeless, school-less, parent-less in Syria?  What about them?

What amazes me is how millions, in whatever currency you choose, can be spent daily to exterminate these enemies of Democracy, but trying to get the cost of a single bomb out of them afterwards to build a school, or a hospital, or a new mosque, is all but impossible.  I just don't understand the logic.  And then we ask what is it that's radicalising these kids?

Making martyrs out of Daesh is not going to help anyone.  They seem to be becoming like Hydra from the Marvel films.  'Cut off one head and 2 more will appear!'  They need to be rendered harmless and that can only be done by restricting their finances and stopping the flow of weapons.  If they've only got a couple of pea-shooters left then I think we can say that the problem has been dealt with.

The only reliable ground forces that I can see though, appear to be the 20,000 or so Kurdish Peshmerger fighters currently being bombed by both the Turkish and the Russians!  So how can we really expect the Kurds to take up the mantle seriously when, as soon as it's done, they go back to be harried left, right and centre by the aforementioned?  The state boundaries drawn up in the Middle East, largely by the French and British in the wake of WW2, just do not work.  The Kurds need to be promised, as do all the indigenous peoples of the region, a viable homeland of their own, where they, the Palestinians, Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, whoever, can live, free from persecution, to follow and build their lives as they wish, not as we tell them to do.  Western style Democracies do not work in the Middle East simply because the electorate do not follow political leaders, preferring to take their onus from religious leaders.  If that how they wish to be governed/live then we should be strong enough to say 'go for it, mate.  I'm with you all the way!'

And controversially, I would also include a homeland for those who wish to live the Muslim Sharia life.  To my way of thinking they are as entitled as we are to live how they wish.  They would just need to be .... restricted, shall we say, in their ambitions!

Does this mean then, that multi-cultural societies cannot develop or survive in the Middle-East?

Possibly.  Only time and sufficient wisdom on all sides will provide an adequate answer.  However, I would suggest that they could and should flourish.  The Ottomans, seen historically more often as great bureaucrats rather than the great conquerors they undoubtedly were, were, of course, also famous for their religious tolerance, and as a consequence multi-faith, multi-cultural, peaceful societies were largely the norm in the Middle East during their reign.  I'm not suggesting that we bring back the Ottomans, merely that we can use their historical example perhaps, as a way of developing more understanding in heterogenous societies.

Of course, for any multi-cultural society to work it takes tolerance and understanding, qualities it is much easier to possess if one has food on the table, money in ones pocket and a smile on ones face!  Hence, in the rich West, we see tolerance practised much more widely; we see people striving to understand what drives those different from ourselves because we have the time and the money to indulge those interests.  Those cowering under a daily bombardment should be forgiven if they can see only their own point of view!  But if we can give the long-suffering children of the Middle-East the same chances that we would wish for our own children, but allowing them at the same time, to express those chances as they see fit, then I think we would all find that we are not so different, after all.